mcmurtry statement and denise wolfe release

8/10/2019 MCMURTRY STATEMENT and DENISE WOLFE Release

1/24


2/24

North American Platform Against Wind Power

2

Most are found near rural communities and their homes, schools and

places of business. Frequent reports are anticipated several times a

week given the depth and breadth of background information found to

date.

This is a process committed to leave no stone unturned in

uncovering the whole truth surrounding the issue of health impacts

from industrial rural energy projects of wind turbines.

RYM

R Y McMurtry CM, MD, FRCSC, FACS

First Cameron Visiting Chair, Health Canada 1999-2000

Founding Assistant Deputy Minister Population and Public Health,

Health Canada, 2000-2002 - initial 15 months acting ADM

Founding Chair of Society for Wind Vigilance 2010-2012

Denise Wolfe Document, A cr i t iqu e of the f inding s and to date

revealed metho do logy of the Heal th Canada Wind Turb ine Noise

Study

This is a DRAFT (and far from exhaustive) review of the informationprovided by Health Canada (HC) pertaining to the HC Wind Turbine NoiseStudyand is designed to serve as a starting point for further discussion.

A review of the information provided by Health Canada with regards to thepreliminary results published on the HC Wind Turbine Noise Study requiresthe consideration of a number of reports / articles / pamphlets. Specifically,

the following found on the HC Wind Turbine Noise web-site:

Summary of Results

A Primer on Noise

Frequently Asked Questions

Results Pamphlet

Additional Information


3/24


3

Health Impacts and Exposure to Sound from Wind Turbines:Updated Research and Design and Sound Exposure

Assessment

Notice to StakeholdersHC Wind Turbine Noise and Health

StudyAdditionally, the following article can be found in the trade news publicationNoise News International.

Self-reported and Objectively Measured Health Indicators among aSample of Canadians Living Within the Vicinity of Industrial WindTurbines: Social Survey and Sound Level Modelling Methodology

For ease of review, sections copied from the various reports / articles listedabove will be presented in the following discussions in blue typeface.

STUDY DESIGN:

Although specified in the Michaud Noise News Internationalpublication,Self-reported and Objectively Measured Health Indicators among a Sampleof Canadians Living Within the Vicinity of Industrial Wind Turbines: SocialSurvey and Sound Level Modelling Methodology, the Summary of Resultssection of the HC web-site does not state that this is an epidemiological

cross sectional survey. Following is from the book, Epidemiology inMedicine (C. Hennekens, M.D., Dr.P.H. and Julie Buring, ScD).

For factors that remain unaltered over time, such as sex, race, orblood group, the cross-sectional survey can provide evidence of avalid statistical association. Such instances are rare, however, andfor the vast majority of associations evaluated, the temporalrelationship between exposure and disease cannot be clearlydetermined. Thus, cross-sectional studies are, in general, useful forraising the questions of the presence of an association rather than fortesting a hypothesis.1

Additionally, several published methods for ranking study designs withrespect to their individual weight of evidence have been developed, one

1Epidemiology in Medicine (C. Hennekens, M.D., Dr.P.H. and Julie Buring, ScD. (1987 / Page 21)


4/24


4

of the most widely accepted is listed below.2 While systematic reviews andmeta-analyses are considered the gold standard of assessing a body ofevidence, taken alone as an individual study, a cross sectional surveyranks as the least reliable method of study, marginally above individualcase reports and expert opinion. The following is the hierarchical list indescending order of reliability:

1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses2. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) with definitive results (confidence

intervals that do not overlap the threshold clinically significant effect)3. Randomized controlled trials with non-definitive results (a point

estimate that suggests a clinically significant effect but withconfidence intervals overlapping the threshold for this effect)

4. Cohort studies

5. Case-control studies6. Cross sectional surveys7. Case reports (individual patient evaluations)

The above hardly supports the claims listed in the HC Results Pamphlet:

The Wind Turbine Noise and Health study is a landmark study andthe most comprehensive of its kind. Both the methodology used andthe results are significant contributions to the global knowledge baseand examples of innovate, leading edge research.

Updated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessment Section:Statistical Power of Report

The following is from the Statistical Powersection of the Updated ResearchDesign and sound Exposure Assessment:

As sleep disturbance is a frequent health complaint associated withWTN in observational and case studies, one of the primary researchobjectives in the study is to quantify the magnitude of sleep

disturbance due to WTN. There are currently no population-basednormative data that are derived from actimetry from communitiesexposed to WTS. Therefore, statistical power in the study isbased on reported sleep disturbance.Estimated sleep disturbance

2Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A

method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 1995; 274:1800-4.


5/24


5

in the general adult population is approximately10% (Riemann et al.,2011; Tjepkema, 2005), with some estimates as high as 40%(National Sleep Foundation, 2005). In calculating the sample sizeneeded for statistical power to detect a sleep disturbance in thisstudy, the conservative estimate of 10% will be used. Based on asample of 2000 dwellings and assuming that 20% of the sample livein close proximity to wind turbines (at 40 dBA or above) investigatorswill be able to detect at least a 7% difference in prevalence ratesbetween the general population and the sample of individuals living inclosest proximity to wind turbines, with a 5% false positive rate and apower of 80%.

This sample size calculation incorporates the following assumptions:a) there will be an 80% occupancy rate for dwellings in rural areas

and b) there will be a 70% participation rate for sleep actimetry. Asample size of 1800 dwellings would be required, however giventhe possibility that not all assumptions may be met and thatprevalence rates will be adjusted for other covariates in alogistic regression model (for example gender, age, receivingfinancial benefit, house construction type among others), thesample has been increased to 2000 dwellings. Based on theestimated sample size of 2000 dwellings, all other objectiveendpoints should be equally predicted with similar confidence.Other studies that have used actimetry to characterize aircraft soundimpacts on sleep are based on far fewer subjects (Passchier-Vermeer et al., 2002; Fidell et al., 1995; Horne et al., 1994; Ollerheadet al., 1992).

Issue: The number of participants in the study is listed at 1,234, not the1,800 dwellings (upped to 2,000 ) required to establish a statistical power of80%. Therefore, the reported sleep disturbance analyses and all otherobjective endpoints in this study are not considered reliable as a result ofthe study failing to meet its own sample size and target power calculations,

as stated in the Updated Research Design and Sound ExposureAssessment. Assuming the study followed the study design identified inthe Updated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessment, the studycannot identify the key outcomes at the chosen incidence / prevalencelevels. In short, the study does not have the statistical power to discern theprevalence of the key outcomes as identified in the protocol.


6/24


6

Therefore all statements along the lines of, No evidence was found tosupport a link between exposure to wind turbine noise and (X outcomevariable) are not supported by the study and are not based on the resultsof the study. Assuming the study followed the study design identified in theUpdated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessmentthis studycannot be used as the basis for the claims that are being made by HealthCanada regarding the lack of association between wind turbines andhealth. The study has insufficient sensitivity and specificity.

From the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - Section: Why didHealth Canada take noise measurements in the summer when there isvery little wind?

It is true that wind is, on average, lower during the summer monthscompared to other times of the year. In order to minimize awarenessbias, noise measurements in any given community only began afterStatistics Canada had completed the in-home interview. This meantthat noise measurements began in June 2013 and continued throughOctober 2013. Some of the field measurements needed to be carriedout during the summer months simply due to the timing of thecollection period. Taking measures during summer months simplymeant that it sometimes took longer to acquire enough data (waiting

for windy periods). It is important to note that field measurementswere taken only to the extent that enough data was collected tovalidate the calculated A-weighted values used in the study. Thisobjective was met.

Issue: The following need to be clarified:

Were noise measurements undertaken at all homes?

How much time was spent at each home completing noisemeasurements?

A table detailing the number of homes within each sound / distance bin(group) at which noise measurements were undertaken would be expectedin any peer-reviewed publication. This table would be expected to providethe amount of time spent at each home completing the noisemeasurements. The resulting table would provide data on measuredversus calculated noiselevels.


7/24


7

Of particular concern is the statement Taking measures during summermonths simply meant that it sometimes took longer to acquire enough data(waiting for windy periods). It is important to note that field measurementswere taken only to the extent that enough data was collected to validate thecalculated A-weighted values used in the study. This objective was met.This seems to suggest that validation consisted of noise measurementequipment being installed in some homes during the relatively windlesssummer months. The equipment then remained at the home until themodeling-predicted average sound level was reached and then noisemeasurement ceased.

Data underwent several layers of modelling in order to 1) use a smallsample of noise to predict overall means and 2) to work backwards from

that data to enable cross-study comparisons. Each procedure introduceserror and uncertainty. Importantly, the study fails to adequately explainwhy raw data at source could not be used.

Summary of Results - Section: Study Population and Participation

All potential homes within approximately 600 m of a wind turbinewere selected, as well as a random selection of homes between 600m and 10 km.

Issue: Although it could be argued that the low frequency soundcomponent of the study required a review of homes out to a 10 km radius,the selection of a 10 km radius simply dilutes the information collected forall other aspects of the study. Please see below from Alec Salt, Professor,Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine

Why pro -wind studies of ten use a 10 km radius

by Alec Salt, Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, WashingtonUniversity School of Medicine

Posted on08/03/2011 byMA
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/why-pro-wind-studies-often-use-a-10-km-radius/http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/author/essexcountywind/http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/author/essexcountywind/http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/why-pro-wind-studies-often-use-a-10-km-radius/


8/24


9/24


9

Or consider if you live within 2 km of a turbine. The outer bands ofthose living from 210 km from the turbine adds up to 301.6 km2,which would represent 30.1 householdswhich is 24 TIMES thenumber of households within 2 km.

No wonder your voice is being drowned out. The bigger the circle,the more dilution occurs.

Add this to the list of things where size matters, and next time yousee a study like this, consider the radius and area that was chosen.The choice of the circle size plays a major role in the resultobtained and speaks volumes about the motivation of theauthor.

Dr. Alec Salt

Due to the dilution process explained above, it is critical to provide theinformation as to the number of homes that were located in each of thecalculated distances from nearest wind turbine groupings selected by theresearchers. (40dBA) of the closestturbine, all of these dwellings will be recruited. If there are relatively fewhomes within 600 meters, why were these turbine installations selected?

The Statistical Powersection of the Updated Research Design and SoundExposure Assessmentstates .Based on a sample of 2000 dwellings andassuming that 20% of the sample live in close proximity to wind turbines (at40 dBA or above), investigators..) As the pubic is concerned with the

proximity to turbines, why were turbine installations selected that wouldresult in a 20% sample living in close proximity to homes?

Summary of Results - Section: Research Objectives and Methodology

To support the assessment and reporting of data, and permitcomparisons to other studies, residences were grouped into different


10/24


10

categories of calculated outdoor A-weighted WTN levels as follows:less than 25 dB; 25-


11/24


11

Of the 2004 locations sampled, 1570 were found to be validdwellingsof which a total of 1238 households with similardemographics participated, resulting in an overall participation rate of78.9%.

Foot note to above: 434 were not valid dwellings; upon visiting theaddress Statistics Canada noted that the location was eitherdemolished for unknown reasons, under construction, vacant forunknown reasons, an unoccupied seasonal dwelling, residents wereoutside the eligible age range, or not a home at all.

Issue: 434 not valid dwellings is not an inconsequential number and I donot believe representative of the norm in epidemiological studies. This lowresponder rate (1238 of 2004 dwellings selected) could easily compromise

the validity of any conclusions drawn by the researchers as a result ofselection bias. A table detailing the number of homes within each sound /distance bin with reason for exclusion provided for being considered notvalid would be expected in any peer-reviewed publication. How manywere simply not home? Were they not home due to aversion to beinghome due to wind turbine concerns / health issues? This needs to beexplored more carefully in the paper. Furthermore, this information must beincluded in the calculations for health outcomes.

Questions that might be addressed with available data (depending on thethoroughness of the data collection) include:

How many of these homes were located in each of the calculateddistances from nearest wind turbine groupings selected by theresearchers? (


12/24


12

that people are forced to leave their homes, have their homes purchasedby the wind companies and destroyed or left vacant, seeking theseindividual home-owners out in their new residences may be a criticalcomponent to the study. Additionally, the Bias and Non Participationsection of the Updated Research Design and Sound Exposure Assessmentstates:

Finally, challenges associated with non-response may exist for avariety of reasons. Subjects may have abandoned their dwelling orthey may be participating receptors under pressures that precludethem from participating. Health Canada has no way of knowing inadvance the extent to which non-response may impact this study, butrefusal conversion strategies will be employed by the interviewersand attempts will be made to acquire limited self-reported results from

non-responders.

It would seem that contrary to study design, no attempts were made toacquire limited self-reported results from non-responders who hadpotentially vacated their homes due to wind turbine related health issues,clearly a key sub-group.


From these, one person between the ages of 18 and 79 years from

each household was randomly selected to participate.

From the FACT section of the Website:Why are no children includedin the study?

A primary objective of the study was to assess the potential impactsthat WTN had on measured sleep. Sleep patterns among children arevery different from those of adults, making it difficult to identifypotential impacts that might be due to WTN exposure. Furthermore,

the questionnaire in the study included questions that would not besuitable for a minor to respond to.

Issue: Children, especially very young children/infants/babies areconsidered a most important and vulnerable population, and HealthCanada makes that very clear when they review and approve new drugsfor sale in Canada. Children are physically and mentally in varying stages


13/24


13

of development that might be sensitive to low frequency sound exposure,including but not limited to broad neurological development, major organand hormonal development, physical and emotional growth, and others.These may effect more than headaches, and sleep but may play a role incognition and performance, yet children have been conspicuously omittedfrom this study as if they were not important to the researchers. This fact isa travesty for health Canada when considering that Public Healthadvocates embrace the Precautionary Principle which means that in theevent of any concerns about any group, especially a vulnerable one likechildren, one takes extreme caution in making any changes withoutextremely reliable data i.e. do no harm.

The rationale presented as to why this study was not designed in such afashion as to contain a component targeted to children via cortisol testing.


The study locations were drawn from areas in ON and PEI wherethere were a sufficient number of homes within the vicinity of windturbine installations. Twelve (12) and six wind turbine developmentswere sampled in ON and PEI, representing 315 and 84 wind turbinesrespectively.

Issue: There is no indication of a breakdown of the types / height of

turbines included in the calculation. There is no indication of a minimumlength of time turbines were operational prior to participation / selection inthe study. A table detailing this information would be expected in any peer-reviewed publication. Furthermore, this information must be included in thecalculations for all health outcomes.

Summary of Results - Section: Self-Reported Questionnaire Results

Results are presented in relation to WTN levels. For findings relatedto WTN annoyance, results are also provided in relation to distance toallow for comparisons with other studies. WTN is a more sensitivemeasure of exposure level and allows for consideration oftopography, wind turbine characteristics and the number of windturbines at any given distance.


14/24


14

Issue: WTN levels used in this study are in fact averages. It is importantto remember that an average WTN level of 46 dBA could have outliers of60 dBA and 0 dBA. It is the upper end of the scale that is of concern.

The Wind Turbine Sound Characterizationsection of the UpdatedResearch Design and Sound Exposure Assessmentstates Due to thelarge number of subjects, sound exposures will be based on predictions. Asub-sample of measurements will be taken at each selected site to validatepredictions. This approach is considered preferable due to the technicallimitations of measurement. Modeling is considered more accurate inrepresenting average wind turbine sound levels than discretemeasurements, which are sensitive to fluctuating variables and do notdiscern between sources of sound.

Furthermore, in order to provide some level of certainty with regards tointerpretation of results, additional analysis should have been included forall self-reported questionnaire results and not simply for Annoyance.Specifically, in addition to the analysis that was carried out, all outcomesshould have been analyzed using a subgroup based on distance fromturbines so that the outcomes can be compared.

It is interesting to note that the only value (Annoyance) that included ananalysis linked to distance from turbines is the only value that resulted instatistical association health concerns with increasing levels of WTN. This

is not a spurious or unimportant observation, and it suggests reporter biasby the authors of this paper.

The following was found to be statistically associated with increasinglevels of WTN:

Annoyance towards several wind turbine features (i.e. noise,shadow flicker, blinking lights, vibrations, and visual impacts).

Summary of Results - Section: Self-Reported Questionnaire Results(Sleep /Illness / Chronic Disease / Stress / Quality of Life)

Results are presented in relation to WTN levels. For findings relatedto WTN annoyance, results are also provided in relation to distance toallow for comparisons with other studies while some individualsreported some of the health conditions above (sleep disorders,


15/24


15

dizziness, tinnitus, migraines, stress), the prevalence was not foundto change in relation to WTN levels.

Issue:The Statistical Powersection of the Updated Research Design andSound Exposure Assessmentstates .Based on a sample of 2000dwellings and assuming that 20% of the sample live in close proximity towind turbines (at 40 dBA or above), investigators..) . It is critical thatdistance to a turbine be included in the calculations related to self-reported questionnaires as apparently only 20% live in close proximity toturbines. This 20% no doubt makes up the some individuals whoreported health conditions.

This 20% becomes diluted in the statistical analysis, allowing for the lack ofassociation of negative health effects with WTN. Additionally, the estimate

is 20% of 2,000 homes, but actual participation was 1,238 homes, and as aresult does that 20% of this smaller than planned responder group actuallymove closer to 10%? This question cannot be answered with theinformation provided in the report, as the breakdown of number of homeswithin each distance to turbine bin has not been provided.

Additionally, what are the confidence limits for no association between self-reported sleep disorders, illness and quality of life and wind turbine noise?

Summary of Results - Section: Community Annoyance Findings

At the highest WTN levels ( 40 dBA in both provinces), the followingpercentages of respondents were highly annoyed by wind turbinenoise: ON-16.5%; PEI-6.3%.

Issue:As the calculated outdoor A-weighted WTN levels reported in theHC study are the result of modeled annual average WNT, it is veryconcerning that a number of respondents were subjected to WTN > 40dBA. It is very possible that these homes would also fall outside of theOntario guidelines.

Below is from Ontarios Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms, Interpretation forApplying MOE NPC Publications to Wind Power Generation Facilities.Please note, these are sound level limits not annual averages.

Receptors in Class 3 Areas (Rural)


16/24


16

The sound level limits at a Point of Reception in Class 3 Areas(Rural) are given by the applicable values in Table 1 (see below), orby the sound level limits, established in accordance withrequirements in Publication NPC-232. The wind turbine sound levellimits are given at integer values of the wind speed. These soundlevel limits range from the lowest value of 40 dBA for Class 3 Areasand wind speeds at or below 4 m/s to the maximum value of 51 dBAfor wind speeds at or above 10 m/s.

Summary of Results - Section: Objectively Measured Results

Objectively measured health outcomes were found to be consistentand statistically related to corresponding self-reported results. WTNwas not observed to be related to hair cortisol concentrations, bloodpressure, resting heart rate or measured sleep (e.g., sleep latency,awakenings, sleep efficiency)

Issue:Again, the Statistical Powersection of the Updated ResearchDesign and Sound Exposure Assessmentstates .Based on a sample of2000 dwellings and assuming that 20% of the sample live in close proximityto wind turbines (at 40 dBA or above), investigators..) . It is critical thatdistance to a turbine be included in the calculations related to objectivelymeasured results as apparently only 20% live in close proximity toturbines. This 20% no doubt makes up the some individuals whoreported health conditions.

This 20% becomes diluted in the statistical analysis, allowing for the lack ofassociation of negative health effects with WTN. Additionally, the estimateis 20% of 2,000 homes, as actual participation was 1,238 homes, does that20% move closer to 10%? This question cannot be answered as thebreakdown of number of homes within each distance to turbine bin hasnot been provided.


17/24


17

Summary of Results - Section: Wind Turbine Noise MeasurementResults

Calculated outdoor A-weighted WTN levels for the homesparticipating in the study reached 46 dBA for wind speeds of 8m/s.This approach is the most appropriate to quantify the potentialadverse effects of WTN. The calculated WTN levels are likely to berepresentative of yearly averages with an uncertainty of about +/- 5dBand therefore can be compared to World Health Organization (WHO)guidelines. The WHO identifies an annual outdoor night time averageof 40 dBA as the level below which no health effects associated withsleep disturbance are expected to occur even among the mostvulnerable people (WHO (2009) Night Noise Guidelines for Europe).

Issue: The above statement is very unclear. Does the above representthe average, or a certain % of homes reaching 46 dBA at specific times?This is very concerning as the majority of industrial wind turbineinstallations in Ontario provide modeling that indicates they are compliantwith the 40dBA MOE guidelines at all times. Which modeling is incorrect?

Additionally, the following information is from the World Health Organization(WHO) Regional Office for Europes Noise page.

The WHO guidelines for night noise recommend less than

40 dB(A)of annual average (night) outside of bedrooms toprevent adverse health effects from night noise.3

It is important to note that the night noise recommended is LESSthan 40 dBA and not 40 dBA as stated in the report.

Summary of ResultsSection: Wind Turbine Noise Measures Results

Infrasound

Long-term measurements over a period of 1 year were alsoconducted in relation to infrasound levels.

33http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/facts-and-figures


18/24


18

Infrasound from wind turbines could sometimes be measured atdistances up to 10km from the wind turbines, but was in manycases below background infrasound levels.

The levels were found to decrease with increasing distance fromthe wind turbine at a rate of 3dB per doubling of distance beyond1km, downwind from a wind turbine.

The levels of infrasound measured near the base of the turbinewere around the threshold of audibility that has been reported forabout 1% of people that have the most sensitive hearing.

Due to the large volume of acoustical data, including that related toinfrasound, analysis will continue over subsequent months withadditional results being released at the earliest opportunitythroughout 2015.

Issue: As infrasound is clearly an important component of this study, it isunclear as to why HC chose to release preliminary results without includingsome information regarding infrasound. Below is from Wind Turbines canbe Hazardous to Human Health,Alec N. Salt, Ph.D.,Cochlear FluidsResearch Laboratory,Washington University in St. Louis. (Updated4/2/2014)

Large wind turbines generate very low frequency sounds andinfrasound (below 20 Hz) when the wind driving them is turbulent.

The amount of infrasound depends on many factors, including theturbine manufacturer, wind speed, power output, local topography,and the presence of nearby turbines (increasing when the wake fromone turbine enters the blades of another). The infrasound cannot beheard and is unrelated to the loudness of the sound that youhear.Infrasound can only be measured with a sound level metercapable of detecting it (and not using the A-weighted scale). Videocameras and other recording devices are not sensitive to infrasoundand do not reproduce it.

You cannot hear the infrasound at the levels generated by windturbines, but your ears certainly detect and respond to it. The pictureshows the enormouselectrical potentials that infrasounds generatein the ear. The potentials (18.7 mV pk/pk amplitude in this case) areabout 4 times the amplitude of sounds in the normal frequency range
http://oto.wustl.edu/cochlea/http://oto.wustl.edu/cochlea/http://oto.wustl.edu/cochlea/http://oto.wustl.edu/cochlea/


19/24


19

that are heard. These measurements show that the low frequencypart of the ear is extremely sensitive to infrasound.4

ISSUES WITH OVERALL PRESENTATION OF THE DATA /INFORMATION

Below are some issues with how Health Canada presented its findings ontheir web site.

Summary of Results - Section: Research Objectives andMethodology:

Detailed information on Health Canada's Wind Turbine Noise andHealth Study methodology, including the 60-day public consultationand peer review process is available on theHealth Canada website.The detailed methodology for the study is also available in the peerreviewed literature (Michaud et al., Noise News International, 21(4):14-23, 2013).

Additionally, the link to Scientific Journal Publicationsin HC WindTurbine Noise Page takes us to the Michaud et al., Noise NewsInternational reference.

Issue:Noise News Internationalis NOT a Peer Reviewed Medical Journal,or a Scientific Journal Publication, it is an Industry News Publication thatdoes not require peer review. Stating that it is a peer reviewed publicationis in error and has the effect of lending undeserved legitimacy to the articlesubmitted by Mr. Michaud. The sentence should read, The detailedmethodology for the study is also available in the Trade News Publication,Noise News International.And the reference should be removed fromthe Scientific Journal Publications section of the HC website.

Summary of Results - Section: Preliminary Research Findings

results do not permit any conclusions about causality;

4http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/wind.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.phphttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.php


20/24


20

Issue: In fact, it is not only the results that do not permit any conclusionsabout causality, it is the study design that does not permit any conclusionsabout causality. The study design selected is an epidemiological crosssectional survey. Epidemiological studies DO NOT establish causality.They establish association of varying degrees, basically as estimates ofrisk in the very best case, which this study is not. The above statementerroneously suggests that had the results been different that causalitybetween health concerns and wind turbine noise could have beenestablished. The point should read Retrospective observationalepidemiological study designs, including this one, do not permit anyconclusions to be drawn about causality. Below from Cornel University:

Epidemiology is the study of diseases in populations of humans orother animals, specifically how, when and where they occur.

Epidemiologists attempt to determine what factors are associatedwith diseases (risk factors), and what factors may protect people oranimals against disease (protective factors). The science ofepidemiology was first developed to discover and understandpossible causes of contagious diseases like smallpox, typhoid andpolio among humans. It has expanded to include the study of factorsassociated with non-transmissible diseases like cancer, and ofpoisonings caused by environmental agents.

Epidemiological studies can never prove causation; that is, it cannotprove that a specific risk factor actually causes the disease beingstudied. Epidemiological evidence can only show that this risk factoris associated (correlated) with a higher incidence of disease in thepopulation exposed to that risk factor. The higher the correlation themore certain the association, but it cannot prove the causation.5

Summary of Results - Section: Annoyance

5.1 Community Annoyance as a Measure of Well-being

The questionnaire, administered by Statistics Canada, includedthemes that were intended to capture both the participants'perceptions of wind turbines and reported prevalence of effectsrelated to health and well-being. In this regard, one of the most widely

5Cornell University Epidemiology: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/TIB/epidemiology.html


21/24


21

studied responses to environmental noise is community annoyance.There has been more than 50 years of social and socio-acousticalresearch related to the impact that noise has on communityannoyance. Studies have consistently shown that an increase innoise level was associated with an increase in the percentage of thecommunity indicating that they are "highly annoyed" on socialsurveys. The literature shows that in comparison to the scientificliterature on noise annoyance to transportation noise sources such asrail or road traffic, community annoyance with WTN begins at a lowersound level and increases more rapidly with increasing WTN.

Issue: This section as presented does not indicate in any fashion that theWorld Health Organization (WHO) classifies annoyance as an adversehealth effect. Below is from the WHO publication Burden of Disease from

Environmental Noise published in 2011.

WHO defines health as a state of complete physical, mental andsocial well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.Therefore, a high level of annoyance caused by environmental noiseshould be considered as one of the environmental health burdens. 6

Summary of Results - Section: Data Availability and Application

Raw data originating from the study is available to Canadians, other

jurisdictions and interested parties through a number ofsources:Statistics Canada Federal Research Data Centres,theHealth Canada website (noise data), open access to publications inscientific journals and conference presentations.

Issue: The Health Canada web-site has been searched for noise data tono avail. A link should be provided to the appropriate section. TheStatistics Canada Federal Research information is only available toindividuals affiliated with Universities. No raw data is available to thegeneral public at this time, therefore this paragraph is very misleading andshould be modified or the data be made available to the public or throughthe freedom of Information Act.

Entire Report:

6http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/rdc-cdr/index-eng.htmhttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/rdc-cdr/index-eng.htm


22/24


22

Wind turbine noise (WTN) levels

Issue:All references to WTN levels should in fact read modeled averageWTN levels. It needs to be 100% clear that these results are not based onlong term sound measurements at homes, but are in fact based on soundmodeling that selected the average. As the 4000 hours of WTNmeasurements were conducted at 1238 homes, this means that each homereceived a total of 3.23 hours of actual sound measurements, or a numberof homes received no actual sound measurements. This breakdown needsto be provided and should be addressed in the statistical modeling.

Summary of Results - Section: Data Availability and Application

Detailed descriptions of the above results will be submitted for peer

review with open access in scientific journals and should only beconsidered final following publication.

Issue: It is not acceptable scientific practice to present a summary in aTrade-based journal in order to establish Health Canadas public andmedia claims prior to publication in a bone fidemedical journal andcertainly not without greater clarity in the research.

Results Pamphlet Section: Key Findings

Calculated noise levels were found to be below levels that would beexpected to directly affect health (World Health Organization-Community Noise Guidelines [1999]). This finding is consistent withself-reported and measured results of the study.

Issue: Calculated noise levels at what distance to turbines? Thisstatement has no frame of reference. How does this statementreconcile with the following statement found in the Wind TurbineNoise Measurement Resultssection of this report,Calculatedoutdoor A-weighted WTN levels for the homes participating in the

study reached 46 dBA for wind speeds of 8m/s. In fact the WHOguidelines for night noise recommend less than 40 dB(A)ofannual average (Lnight) outside of bedrooms to prevent adversehealth effects from night noise.7

77http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/facts-and-figures


23/24


24/24

24

there a table available that indicates which homes were checked.

I feel that the above listed issues result in misleading information beingprovided to the general public and that Health Canada should addressthem immediately.

Denise Wolfe, Amherst Island2014

mcmurtry statement and denise wolfe release

Documents